Give yourself to God

I believe in a deity that loves us all. But really I think his love goes beyond that of the Christian god. Hell is a myth, we all go to heaven because what is sin but temporary?

would a monastery accept a heretic who is really good at interpreting the bible in fiendish ways
you know, for the lulz

>>37543032
They would teach you the true meaning of the verses and would have you reach enlightenment through study and meditation

>>37542969
Well because I suck at it

/wBqdKjW

r9k Christian discord made for discussion, anyone with questions, and generally focused on bringing us all closer to the Lord.

>>37543100
we all are, the only way we are able to do any good at all is through His Grace.

>>37543032
obedience is a major part of monastic life so I would say no

>>37542998
Sin is a rejection of God's Love, because through his love he gives us free will.
All hell is God granting people who reject his Love their wish of being separate from him. It's not a punishment as much as it is that persons free decision to be without the Love of God.

>>37542969

There's no god to give oneself to.

>>37543908
I'm right here, dickhead.

File: 4ways.jpg (324KB, 1583x2048px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1583x2048px

>>37543908

These videos don't argue for God specifically but he has some on this channel which do, I highly recommend you watch them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

and some stuff arguing for God (watch the answering objection follow up videos as well as they cover all the objections I've seen people bring up in response._

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM

I don't expect these to convince you but there is reason there that there isn't really any refutation for even after hundreds/over a thousand years for some of the arguments.

Good does exist and he wants Good for you as well.

>>37543879
God loves us regardless. There can be no rejection of his love, we live in a universe that loves us. There's no being separate from God, he still eventually envelops us all in his love.

>>37542998
People only say this to justify their sin.

>>37544014
So he doesn't respect peoples free will? That doesn't seem loving. If you really Love someone but they don't want to be around you no matter what you do, you must respect their wishes and Love them through granting them that isolation.

it's their choice however. To sin is to tell God I don't want your Love and if you refuse to hear his pleads he will accept your decision and you will be cut off.

>>37544051
Au contraire he does respect free will. That's why he created us, to do what we want to be happy. I don't find it loving to go to hell just for choosing to reject his love. Some of us are angry and miserable people, that doesn't make us deserving of hell.

>>37544090
>he respects free will
>but he loves you so he ignores your decisions

seems pretty incoherent honestly.

>>37544033
What do I have to justify to you or anyone? Nothing. Enjoy your pessimism and judgement. I'm sure it makes you very happy.

>>37544090
Not true, everyone deserves hell. Hence the need to be saved by Jesus Christ.

>>37542969
We are God desu.

>>37544124
That's a really shitty way to look at the universe man. How do you go through life like that?

>>37544009
None of the arguments in that picture hold any water, any they CERTAINLY don't prove the existence of God.

t. Someone who believes in God

>>37544136
It's true it doesn't matter how practical or useful it is.

We are all fallen and sinful, and are undeserving of anything good. God is merciful and loving though and we allow us to share in his perfection.

This is pretty basic Christian theology the 2 apostolic Churches atleast maintain it and I'm pretty sure most of the other denoms as well.

Any Good you see in the world is only because it is a gift from God, we deserve none of it even what he has already given us and we can accomplish no good on our own.

>>37544174
That's pretty sad buddy.
I grew up in a household that believed like that and it made me fucking miserable. I hope you break away from that someday.

>>37544201
I was an athiest/anti religous for most of my life and was very into nihilism, how can having such a Gracious Kind God make you miserable?

If you are ever miserable it's because you lack understanding or faith in God's love. To give something to some one who deserves it is nothing.

To give your only son to people who deserve nothing is truly gracious and most kind.

>>37544217
Jesus was a good guy but he was just a prophet like Muhammed and Buddha. Nothing divine about that.

>>37542969
Losing faith in god is one of the first babby steps of a robot. I couldn't delude myself into believing in a god again, nor do I want to.

File: Aquinas Cosmological Argument.jpg (560KB, 700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 700x6826px

>>37544165
They need to be expanded a bit more but they are pretty solid, he in the summa theologica expands upon them quite a bit.

I have another, but again these are generally complex ideas and need to be expanded a bit

>>37543879
I'm in the discord linked here if you want to talk about any of them.

>>37542969
I already did.
Original

Nearly every religion describes God as 'The Light' 'The One' 'Logos' 'Ein Sof' 'Love' 'Goodness' 'Infinity' etc. At the beginning of the universe, there was a huge amount of energy contained within an infinitesimally small point (personally, I believe it to be dimensionless, but scientists have only managed to prove that it's at least as small as something like an acorn or similar, I can't remember - just that it was pretty small). In Judaism, it is said that because God was everything, He had to draw in and limit His own infinite Self. This allowed for the space within which we exist and live our lives. Does that sound at all similar to anything? This energy makes up everything within the universe. Nothing is not a part of it. The reason God is omnipresent is because of this. Additionally, because energy is the cause of all change, motion, and everything, He is omnipotent - His power is what drives everything in existence. Due to being omnipresent, God is de facto omniscient, as being the cause and essence of everything, it would follow that he is omniscient, since he is there to experience everything which could be known. Speaking of experiencing everything which it is possible to experience, that is the purpose of God, and thus ourselves. We are God. He is able to experience life because of, and through, us. Every pleasure, every pain. All the good and bad, He longs for infinity. This also allows Karma to play a part, since every time we harm someone or something, we are literally harming ourself - our One, infinite Self. It is my opinion that there are infinitely many other universes within which We, as God, are experiencing all of the other possibilities of the universe. Our truest form is the collection of all of these universes, as well as nonexistence. We exist as a sort of superposition of all of these universes, and countless nonexistences. So, this means that though bad things may happen to you, it's okay because we must experience ALL.

>>37542969
>virgin
What's wrong with being a virgin?

File: 1488924347270.gif (2MB, 255x191px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 255x191px

>>37544136
Because it disciplines you. This is why Christianity is so successful, it produces good societies.

If I'm going to heaven anyway, why wouldn't I just sit on my arse, get drunk and do drugs all day? Why would I go to work, get married, and raise children if I can just jack-off all day for instant gratification?

Life is a struggle and the Holy Spirit will see you through it.

>>37544117
You don't have to justify anything to me, you only hurt yourself. Keep telling yourself that living a totally meaningless life of sin is satisfying or morally righteous.
It's horrible seeing so many people throwing their lives away because they think they can live the hedonistic life of their favourite celebrity and destroy their mind and bodies with drink and drugs.

>>37544383
>He had to draw in and limit His own infinite Self
dude what

All basic ontology talks of God as outside the material and outside of universe.
God is present in all change/being/motion however that doesn't mean he is only that or are somehow ourselves.

I rec watching the vids I linked above but based on your comment I don't really anticipate responding to you again.
Watch the video on the ontological arugment and the videos answering objections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68

>>37544414
chastity is a good thing

>>37544009

These kind of arguments are good for a philosophy class and not much else; these are the same kind of arguments that argue convincingly for solipsism that literally no one takes seriously once they leave the classroom.

There's no reason to assume (and it is an assumption) that the root of any of these supposed problems MUST be some kind of being that could be called a god, instead of some natural phenomenon like we've found everywhere else we've bothered to look, or something else entirely. Also, this is not the kind of god our neighbors believe in; they believe in Yahweh, or Brahman, or Jesus, not this bland mechanical deist god who always seems to hide just outside the boundaries of scientific inquiry. This kind of argument often gets busted out to rationalize the defense of Yahweh or Buddha or whoever, but it doesn't defend them at all; believing that there must be an "absolutely necessary being" somewhere doesn't even begin to defend the existence of a specific iron age Hebrew god, and arguments for that being are not arguments in support of the divinity of a first century crucifixion victim.

You want to convince me, show me some solid evidence that this deity guy exists. The theory of the existence of a God doesn't pass the same level of rigor we apply to homeopathic medicine, despite making infinitely larger claims, and as such should be treated with at least that same level of skepticism.

>>37543940

oh sorry sir, i'll report to a church immediately

i hope it doesn't matter which because there's a ton to choose from

>>37544375
I agree fully with that image, and it's actually quite interesting. Thank you for posting it. But that doesn't make me believe in Christianity (at least not as you believe in it). I posted >>37544383. So, because of the fact that there are infinite realities which must be /actualized/ (to use that very good and pertinent word from your image), Christianity must be correct in an infinite number of barely differing realities. So it may very well be correct in this reality, but there's no way to be sure, and my 'religion' supercedes your own (and all others - even including itself in a sort of infinite progression and regression paradox; that's why I am ///extremely/// fond of the quote, "It's turtles all the way down." - it very well captures the essence of existence).

>attend and volunteer at church to serve the Lawd
>tfw everyone there pities you and treats you like a retard because your ugly and extremely awkward
haven't been to church since

>>37544435
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/gods-withdrawal/
Know that before there was any emanation and before any creatures were created a simple higher light filled everything. There was no empty space in the form of a vacuum but all was filled with that simple infinite light. This infinite light had nothing in it of beginning or end but was all one simple, equally distributed light. This is known as "the light of Ein Sof."
There arose in His simple will the will to create worlds and produce emanations in order to realize His perfect acts, His names and His attributes. This was the purpose for which the worlds were created.
Ein Sof then concentrated His being in the middle point, which was at the very center, and He withdrew that light, removing it in every direction away from that center point.
There then remained around the very center point an empty space, a vacuum. This withdrawal was equidistant around that central empty point so that the space left empty was completely circular. It was not in the form of a square with right angles. For Ein Sof withdrew Himself in circular fashion, equidistant in all directions.
The reason for this was that since the light of Ein Sof is equally spaced out it follows by necessity that His withdrawal should be equidistant in all directions and that He could not have withdrawn Himself in one direction to a greater extent than in any other. It is well known in the science of mathematics that there is no more equal figure than the circle. It is otherwise with the figure of a square, which has protruding right angles, or with a triangle or with any other figure. Consequently, the withdrawal of Ein Sof had to be in the form of a circle.

Etc. Etc. Please read the link. I had to skip a lot to fit this, and I couldn't even finish it. But I think this link will be extremely helpful to understand what I mean, and at the very least it's a chance to learn some interesting new things!!

>>37544475
None of the beginning is any sort of argument. You are either throwing logic out entirely or have to accept it as a means of determine Truth. Solipsism can also be easily refuted (I used to be one).
None of it starts with those assumptions again I suggest watching the videos. They cover this.

>proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBu_Jw61UZE

Here is a video why there will never be physical proof, and why that's a good thing. Physical proof isn't a realistic thing to maintain for anything other than physical phenomena, otherwise one would need physical proof they, logic exists, or that physical proof is even a logically coherent concept. It just doesn't actually make sense outside of studying material.

>>37544484
The video of the Ontological argument covers all those points, would highly suggest watching it.

>>37544562
we need to go to be healed, I had nice old ladies introduce me too and help me talk to normies my age though. It's out of obedience to the Lord, he will help you carry any cross you need too.

>>37544571
There are just some basically logically incoherent stuff

seems to imply there is material that is infinite but also restricted and has specific material traits which is just kind of inconsistent.
God cannot be material or be present in any sort of space

I'm really not interested in more esoteric/mystical stuff i've never found it to hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

>>37544664
>Solipsism can also be easily refuted
Uhm, it literally can't. That's like, it's whole thing.

>>37544664
In response to your last quote:
That's Jewish canon. It's their actual belief within the religion. Because Christianity just branches off of it (Islam, too), this is the canon beginning of God's existence (it begins and explains things ever so slightly before Genesis begins, and then they basically say the same thing). So don't just dismiss it. This is a part of your religion lol.

File: creation-museum.jpg (51KB, 860x225px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 860x225px

>>37544383

The fact that you can retroactively fit creation myths onto current scientific theory (if you try hard enough) doesn't really do anything to support the idea that those myths contain some kind of transcendent truth. It would be super impressive if we found a Dead Sea scroll that contained passages describing exactly how electrons work, or the structure of DNA, or the speed of light, but instead what we find are stories about a "God" who operates suspiciously like a giant, supernatural human being separating land and water, then making humans out of dirt by making a man and then pulling a rib out to make a woman. You can point out that there's a part where it describes light coming into being first, sure, but if you then have to selectively ignore the rest...

We can always ask two questions when it comes to religions vs the facts of reality; do the facts suggest that the religion is true, or are the facts compatible with the religion being true? The answer to the first question depends a lot on what the facts are. Does the fact that dinosaurs once ruled the Earth and only left when they were wiped out by natural forces suggest a careful, loving creator deity who created the universe specifically for humans to live in it? And doesn't have dinosaurs mentioned in divinely inspired holy books at all? Not really, no.

But the trick is that the answer to the second question is always yes, you need only add caveats onto your existing beliefs about God in order to mesh the facts with those beliefs. If you're willing to spend 27 million dollars you can even build a museum to rationalize the compatibility of Christianity and dinosaurs.

If you're not dedicated to intellectual honesty and the support of evidence for your beliefs, you can probably argue your way into any belief at all with sufficient maneuvering.

>>37542969
I believe in a "deity" that created the material universe.

Next up, I honestly believe "gods" are what our ancestors ancient aliens. As far as the Abrahamic god, it was probably a ploy by the aliens as they were leaving/reducing their involvement as a way to erase the knowledge of their involvement.

The original deity doesn't care about anything and is really just a name for universal laws that we both can an can understand. Things don't have to have a meaning. I'm fine just dying. I like reading abou ancient paganism because I'm of European descent so it just feels right. Do I honestly think praying to them will help me in life? No. It's just comforting to think they might exist. Same with Yahweh, I just don't resonate with its choices and methods for spreading influence.

File: d343606416ba324bc1244d259f6c0ce95a086d3a659ed2438db791a3eed02f22.jpg (259KB, 1784x1024px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1784x1024px

>>37544703
Yeah I used to be one of those people into edgy skeptical philosophy and would post in lots of places like these, it's the best philosophy for shitposting.

It's all based in false assumptions though, in particular those of revealed Truths.
They aren't able to be refuted if you maintain all Truth must be based 100% in logic, because no Truth is based 100% in logic and that isn't even slightly rational to have as a stance.

it's all dependent on the idea of rationalism.

>>37544758
Not how it works, kabbalah only arose in like 1200 ad and jews have different books now.
Just because it says jews in the bible doesn't mean it's the same person. And our Ontology of God based on the Trinity makes it totally different.
>>37544789
there isn't a single thing contradicting science and Christianity...
If you think there is you are just misunderstanding one or the other.

>>37544789
I definitely don't subscribe to any of those religions, and there are only a very few portions of their holy books which mean anything to me.
I actually used to think of it as an all or nothing thing. One either had to believe in the entirety of the book, or else discard it completely. But I've come to realize that this methodology doesn't work. Whether they just so happened to stumble upon them, or they were divinely inspired, or an extremely intelligent mind deduced them, or someone saw them within an altered state of consciousness (whether through meditation, or drugs, or both!), the origin isn't really important. What matters is that within these books are sporadic bits of text which contain some Truth, perhaps about the nature of reality, or our C/creator, ourselves, or anything. These Truths are present within the texts, and it is very worth it to search through the texts for them, even though large portions of them may very well be garbage.

File: 1495315202723.png (55KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 217x190px

My anxiety is too bad to go to a church. They are way too crowded and I can't stand being anywhere where anyone can see me. Work is hard enough.
A just God would never send someone he made so autistic and agoraphobic to hell.

>>37544664
>Physical proof isn't a realistic thing to maintain for anything other than physical phenomena,

Which is the only kind of phenomena there is. We know now that even things like thoughts (including logical ones, presumably) and feelings have a physical basis.

If you want me to believe that there's some kind of metaphysical realm where this stuff happens, though, feel free to post some evidence that it exists. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, what you're saying here is that there will never ever be a good reason to believe that a god exists, much less the specific one you believe in, and thus one should not believe.

>>37544958
That's what you think, you fucking sinner. It's up to YOU to overcome the challenges the Gather has created for you in order to prove your love to home.

Fuck off until you read the bible.

>>37544958
was a neet of 3 years before going to Church for the first time, was scary but the thing with God is he is merciful/understanding, and if you pray to him with desire he will give you all the help you need to do what he asks.
He isn't unfair all you need to do is ask and if you have faith he will provide. (Not always how you want, but always how you need)

>>37544988
Already did watch the videos I posted earlier. Quantum physics and the neuroscience video here

>>37544009

>>37545014
fake troll ignore him

>give up your self agency to special interests
no thanks
if anything the church need to help people move up in life, not just letting them pray away their fears

>>37545014
The pope says nice atheists can get into heaven too

>>37545032
I pray sometimes asking for whatever God there is out there to forgive me for whatever I did to offend them and my uncertainty of their existence. Isn't that enough?

>>37544825
C'mon op I want a response

File: 1494503886817.jpg (93KB, 848x480px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 848x480px

>>37545014
Grrr I'm so mad

>>37544899

If there isn't a single contradiction, it could only be because the books have no real content at all. If a creation myth is written down in what's called a holy book, then it's said to have not actually happened, what worth does that content have then? There are no moral lessons to read into Genesis; so then it's just a fictional account of how the Universe came into being that nobody, not even the people who believe the book is divinely inspired, should believe? Really?

This is just a rhetorical tactic to jettison beliefs that have become too embarrassing to hold on to anymore. You have to disavow Genesis in order to not be dismissed out of hand. Yet no part of the Bible is any better supported by evidence than Genesis, and if Genesis can be a "well clearly that didn't happen" passage, what reason is there to think the rest is objectively true in any sense? And that's important, because without that sense of the Bible being the absolute, objective truth, then it becomes merely a poorly organized and edited tome of morality.

But when reduced to just a philosophy, it will rapidly become clear that it's not a thought-out, consistent philosophy with consistent values and worthwhile ideas about how to better live our lives. I could find a better book on living morally in five minutes browsing at a Barnes and Noble, and if I were free to "interpret" text, I could find a better one in 30 seconds of browsing in the Cooking aisle; all I would need to do is say "well obviously this recipe isn't to be taken literally, let me tell you all the beneficial interpretations of morality that can be taken from it."

And I'd probably do a better job than the Bible because I'm not tied down with the barbaric moral intuitions of people living 2000+ years ago.

>>37545040
/thread

alberi viale

>>37542969
Fuck off zealot. I do not require your outmoded superstitious nonsense to become a greater person.

>>37542969
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
isaiah 46:10
origgy

Will God make my parent's retired life better than the average? If so i'll self-immolate or whatever, i don't care, as long as that debt is paid.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
isaiah 45:7
tl:dr your god created evil

>>37545590
You say that like it's supposed to be a bad thing

>>37545695
no, i say it how the scripture said it

>>37545590
>Hey guys, this line of scripture sounds stupid if you have a completely simplistic interpretation of it

So tell me, why did God create evil?

He's your God too btw

File: 1489712513772.png (221KB, 487x726px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 487x726px

>>37545590
>If God is so great then why does he allow bad things to happen

It's really not that fucking difficult to figure out retard.

File: 1488856233393.png (421KB, 653x641px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 653x641px

>>37545590
>>37545695
Also
lel

File: PicsArt_05-23-01.57.03.jpg (67KB, 653x641px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 653x641px

>>37546529
And my lovely edit ;3

>>37544217
>If you are ever miserable it's because you...
This line of thought was what made me realize why Christianity was bogus. Christianity solves all your woes just because, and if it ever fails to do so it's your fault. "If you really believed in God you wouldn't have this issue, etc." No true Scotsman and all that. Mostly I'm just glad I got away from this line of thought when I did.

>>37544217
>To give your only son to people who deserve nothing is truly gracious and most kind.
He got resurrected and rose to heaven three days later. Nothing was sacrificed. That's not giving anything.

File: 123121241.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>have a psych record
>can't even join the army to kill myself
>mfw

Prove god exists and i will.

bum bum bumididididididididd
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP

jesus don't want me for a sunbeam

I have had thoughts about it. It seems like such a peaceful path in this chaotic world, especially if you choose to be a monk. But if I were to persue it I would take it serious and not look back.